Christian Daily News | Daily News and Inspiration from around the World » Sciencehttp://christian-daily-news.com
Your source for daily Christian news, true stories and inspirational posts on faith, hope and prayer. Subscribe and receive news and inspiration right to your Inbox.Tue, 22 Jul 2014 12:31:47 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.3The Complexity Of A Single Cellhttp://christian-daily-news.com/the-complexity-of-a-single-cell/
http://christian-daily-news.com/the-complexity-of-a-single-cell/#commentsMon, 02 Dec 2013 14:08:33 +0000http://christian-daily-news.com/?p=1288A feed for 'Christian Daily News'. The Complexity Of A Single Cell:

Each of the trillions of hard-working cells of the body is a dynamo of activity. Inside of each of these cells are about 200 wiggling mitochondria. Each one of these would be about 1/50,000th the size of a globe as big as a dot! Inside of each mitochondrion are hundreds of small "spheres" scattered along stalks in the mitochondrion!

Each of the trillions of hard-working cells of the body is a dynamo of activity. Inside of each of these cells are about 200 wiggling mitochondria. Each one of these would be about 1/50,000th the size of a globe as big as a dot! Inside of each mitochondrion are hundreds of small “spheres” scattered along stalks in the mitochondrion!

Each sphere is about 1/1,000th size of the mitochondrion! So, each sphere would be about one-five-millionth (1/5,000,000) the size of a dot! Each of these tiny spheres is a chemical factory, with a “production line” that produces energy and food for the cell. This is such a marvel of smallness and intricate complexity that it stretches one’s imagination even to try to think of it.

As for the so-called “simple cell”, from which the evolutionists say all living creatures have evolved, Look Magazine declared, “The cell is as complicated as New York City.” The well-known evolutionist Loren Eisely likewise admitted in his book, The Immense Journey, that “Intensified effort revealed that even the supposedly simple amoeba was a complex, self-operating chemical factory. The notion that he was a simple blob, the discovery of whose chemical composition would enable us instantly to set the life process in operation, turned out to be, at best, a monstrous caricature of the truth.”

Can you imagine a dictionary, a chemical factory, or New York City, coming into existence by itself–POOF–without any assistance from an intelligent designer, planner or creator? Such is the logic of evolution’s imaginary assumption that the infinitely complex “simple” cell accidentally came together and came alive by blind, unguided chance! Commenting on this assumption, the British biologist Woodger said, “It is simple dogmatism–asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen.” The absurdity of this evolutionary logic is only amplified as we move on to the even more complex, multi-celled forms of life.

The argument from probability that life could not form by natural processes but must have been created is sometimes acknowledged by evolutionists as a strong argument. The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional ‘simple’ cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged to be worse than 1 in 1057800. This is a chance of 1 in a number with 57,800 zeros. It would take 11 full pages of magazine type to print this number. (D.A. Bradbury, ‘Reply to Landau and Landau’ Creation/Evolution 13(2):48-49, 1993.)

These numbers defy our ability to comprehend their size. Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, has used analogies to try to convey the immensity of the problem. For example, Hoyle said the probability of the formation by chance of just one of the many proteins on which life depends is comparable to that of the solar system packed full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik’s cubes all arriving at the solution at the same time and this is the chance of getting only one of the 400 or more proteins of the hypothetical minimum cell proposed by the evolutionists (real world ‘simple’ bacteria have about 2,000 proteins and are incredibly complex). As Hoyle points out, the program of the cell, encoded on the DNA, is also needed. In other words, life could not form by natural (random) processes. (D.A. Bradbury, ‘Reply to Landau and Landau’ Creation/Evolution 13(2):48-49, 1993. F. Hoyle, ‘The big bang in astronomy’ New Scientist, 92(1280):527, 1981.)

Creationists do not argue that life is merely complex, but that it is ordered in such a way as to defy a natural explanation. The order in the proteins and DNA of living things is independent of the properties of the chemicals of which they consist-unlike an ice crystal, where the structure results from the properties of the water molecule. The order in living things parallels that in printed books where the information is not contained in the ink, or even in the letters, but in the complex arrangement of letters which make up words, words which make up sentences, sentences which make up paragraphs, paragraphs which make up chapters and chapters which make up books. These components of written language respectively parallel the nucleic acid bases, codons, genes, operons, chromosomes and genomes which make up the genetic programs of living cells. The order in living things shows they are the product of intelligence.

The theory of evolution postulates that small, incremental, beneficial steps propel the evolutionary process forward. It is much like a device where only one component of that device is modified at a time, so as to improve the efficiency of the device in some way, while at the same time allowing the device to remain functioning without any other modifications.

The theory of evolution postulates that small, incremental, beneficial steps propel the evolutionary process forward. It is much like a device where only one component of that device is modified at a time, so as to improve the efficiency of the device in some way, while at the same time allowing the device to remain functioning without any other modifications.

Once the device has settled into the fact that it now has an improved component, it then “sees” the benefit of upgrading another one. The point is that it takes these steps one at a time, sees how good that step is, and then takes another step. The device must both continue to function and improve its functionality.

But what if the upgrade requires more than one improvement at a time? Evolutionary theory cannot accommodate this. The improvement must be one step at a time, and if a component doesn’t offer an advantage to an organism (i.e., it doesn’t function), it will be lost or discarded. Are there devices occurring in nature that therefore cannot be explained by evolution? Indeed there are many, but it only takes one to disprove the theory.

We will choose one which everyone will be familiar with—the amazing human knee joint. The knee joint is unique in our bodies. It is quite unlike the ball and socket joints of our hips or shoulders and the pivot joint of our elbows. Although those are all marvels of engineering, the knee is truly exceptional. It consists of several elements, but the critical design parts are the two condyles of the femur bone that rotate in the matching concave grooves of the tibia, and the two cruciate ligaments (so called because they cross over each other) that fit in the space between the condyles.

If a structure is so complex that all of its parts must initially be present in a suitably functioning manner, it is said to be irreducibly complex. The knee joint is irreducible; all four of these parts must be present for the knee to work. (The knee has other parts, but these four are essential to each other for them to function in the way they do.) Any one, two, or three of them on their own would not perform any useful function. They are all unique to the knee.

Therefore it is impossible for the knee to evolve from a simpler joint like the hip or the elbow, according to the theory of evolution. How such a device could have evolved in a gradual, step-by-step process as required by classic Darwinian evolution is an insurmountable obstacle to evolutionists.

SCIENTIST SEES DESIGN
The laws of nature seem to have been carefully arranged so that they can be discovered by beings with our level of intelligence. That not only fits the idea of design, but it also suggests a providential purpose for humankind—that is, to learn about our habitat and to develop science and technology.
—Physicist Robin Collins, quoted in: Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator (Grand Rapids, Mi.: Zondervan, 2004), 147.

How did trees come into existence and what is their origin? We do know that they are an important part of the terrestrial ecosystem, and provide a habitat for a community of arboreal animals and plants. Leaves, flowers and fruits are seasonally available. On the ground underneath trees there is shade, shelter, undergrowth, leaf litter, fallen branches and decaying wood. Trees […]

How did trees come into existence and what is their origin? We do know that they are an important part of the terrestrial ecosystem, and provide a habitat for a community of arboreal animals and plants. Leaves, flowers and fruits are seasonally available. On the ground underneath trees there is shade, shelter, undergrowth, leaf litter, fallen branches and decaying wood. Trees stabilise the soil, prevent rapid run-off of rain water, help prevent desertification, have a role in climate control and help in the maintenance of biodiversity and ecosystem balance. (Adapted from Wikepedia)

Tom Hennigan, Georgetown, New York, and Jerry Bergman, Northwest State College, Archbold, Ohio, wrote a noteworthy and fascinating document called ‘The Origin of Trees’, published March 8, 2011. Here are some excerpts taken from the publication:

The Origin of Trees

According to Genesis, trees were created on the third day of the Creation Week. Within a Biblical worldview, this suggests that they are discontinuous with other plant forms. Naturalists posit that trees arose by random processes from simpler photosynthetic organisms. Fossil evidence for tree evolution from putative non-tree precursors is evaluated. It is concluded that the fossil record does not support an evolutionary origin for trees from non-tree plant forms. The earliest trees found in the fossil record were well developed, and no plausible explanation exists to overcome the enormous odds against their evolu- tionary origins from single-celled ancestors. It is concluded that when the fossil record, tree ecology, global Flood, and complex biochemical systems are analyzed within a Biblical worldview, the data are consistent with the Genesis account that God directly created trees.

Introduction

Trees have been powerful life symbols throughout history and across cultures. For example, Tu B’Shevat is Jewish Arbor Day and takes place on the fif- teenth of Shevat, sometime between mid-January and mid-February. Shevat is the name of the Jewish month when spring begins in Israel and trees come to life again after the winter. According to Jewish tradition, Tu B’Shevat celebrates trees because they symbolize the Torah and represent beauty and vitality. The psalmist paints the analogy that those who trust and live by God’s precepts are likened to solidly rooted trees that have steadfast, fruitful, and vital lives because

they are tapped into the source of life. The word “tree” [Heb. ēts; Gr. déndron (xýlon)], also “timber” or “wood,” is referenced nearly 300 times in Scripture and is a major feature of God’s creation (Tenney, 1967, p 869). The Bible specifically names at least 30 species of trees. (See Table I for a sampling of these tree species.) Linguistic difficulties, such as translating Hebrew and Greek words that are more like local common names, and a lack of direct one-to-one correspondence between species and Bible words, make it difficult to iden- tify exactly what tree species is being discussed (Oberpriller, 2011, personal communication). For example, because of the above linguistic challenges, trees identified as pine, juniper, cypress, and cedar often preclude a precise identifi- cation. The Genesis account suggests that trees are discontinuous from other vegetational growth forms and did not originate from simpler precursors. Trees were created on Day 3 according to their kinds, or baramin (Gen. 1:11–12; 1:29; 2:9; 2:16), and Genesis chapters 6–9 revealed a historic worldwide Flood that helps explain the world’s massive graveyards. It is upon this foundation that creationists can develop scientific models of the origin of trees and fossil strata.

Alternatively, neo-Darwinian evolutionists assume that trees arose by random, natural processes through descent with modification. When discussing the term “evolution,” it is important that it be carefully defined because it can be a slippery and confusing word. For example, processes such as natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, speciation, and changing allelic frequencies have each been termed evolution. Though the details and magnitudes of importance of these processes may differ in the minds of creationists and evolutionary naturalists, all agree that each of them has been observed. For the purposes of this paper, neo-Darwinian evolution is defined as the random and undirected natural process in which mutation and natural selection are thought to have produced trees from non-tree photosynthetic precursors over billions of years.

Relatively little has been published in creation publications about the evolution of trees. Most creation articles on trees have been related to the issue of chronology (see Lammerts, 1975; 1983; Kreiss, 1985; Bergman and Doolan, 1987; Aardsma, 1993; Beasley, 1993; Lorey, 1994; Bates, 2003; Williams, 2004, and Woodmorappe, 2003). Coppedge (2003) covered the intelligent design of the tree fluid-pumping system. Howe (1987b) argued the importance of creationist explanations for plant biogeography from the perspective of Flood and post-Flood geological influences on mountain formation. It is well known that mountains are a big factor in determining weather patterns that influence plant and animal associations all over the world. Because both creation and evolution begin with differing presuppositions, we examine which presuppositional worldview is most consistent with the data (…)

Isn’t the human eye so much more intricate than the best camera lens in the world? We expect a high-priced optical photographic lens to undergo an extensive amount of intentional funding, planning and development, yet we’re expected to believe that the human eye, the retina and their complexity that are far more inconceivable than Canon’s famous L-glass, […]

Isn’t the human eye so much more intricate than the best camera lens in the world? We expect a high-priced optical photographic lens to undergo an extensive amount of intentional funding, planning and development, yet we’re expected to believe that the human eye, the retina and their complexity that are far more inconceivable than Canon’s famous L-glass, have come into existence by chance and natural selection.

I am a passionate photographer and have been fortunate to own both Nikon and Canon DSLR (single-lens reflex) cameras and some very good lenses for some time. From reading photography journals and doing research I know that both companies regularly spend a considerable amount of resources such as manpower, funds and material into improving their top notch lenses, as well as developing new ones. I wouldn’t know of anybody who would claim that Canons high quality L-glass lenses came into existence by a series of laboratory accidents involving fire, water, gravity, sparks and more over a longer period of time. We just know that DSLR’s and lenses were designed and manufactured by higher intelligence.

…the human retina is far more complex. Yet an evolutionist who is looking at the human retina will say, “Now let’s see: what combination of wind, fire, water, sparks, reducing atmosphere, etc., caused this to happen?” I think this points out the curious double standard concerning the subject of origins that is present among otherwise good scientists. I think the computer-retina analogy is very useful for vividly demonstrating this double standard.

The retina lining the back of the eye is a very thin “membrane” even thinner than Saran-Wrap. Compare this with a computer chip. The May 1985 issue of High Technology showed computer silicon chips. The actual chip is about 7 millimeters across and has the complexity of 100,000 transistors. The retina contains photoreceptors that may be compared to transistors. However, a photoreceptor is actually a very efficient, high gain amplifier and much more complex than a transistor. The retina in the fovea has 200,000 of these photoreceptors for every square millimeter.

Phenomenal! So here you have high technology that does not even come near the retina in complexity.

The retinal rods and cones are composed of various layers. The human rods have a dynamic range of about 10 billion-to-one. In other words, when fine-tuned for high gain amplification (as when you are out on a dark night and there is only starlight), your photoreceptors can pick up a single photon. Phenomenal sensitivity! Of course the retina does a number of processing tricks on that just to make sure it is not picking up noise, so you don’t see static; it really wants at least six receptors in the same area to pick up the same signal before it “believes” that it is true and sends it to the brain. In bright daylight the retina bleaches out and the volume control turns way down for, again, admirable performance.

Modern photographic film has a dynamic range of only about 1,000-to-one. The retina is a visual system that handles nearly all ranges of light intensity without even changing film or developer. Not bad for a structure engineered several thousand years ago!

Is the eye poorly designed?

Some evolutionists have said, “My goodness, look at that mistake. The retina is inside out and should be turned around the other way since the light should hit the photoreceptors first.” There is a very good reason the mammalian retina is the way it is. The photoreceptors (the rods and cones) have a very high rate of metabolism and they have to be in touch with the nutrient supply. Those photoreceptors (in mammals) replace themselves probably every seven days if they are young and healthy. This is a very good protective mechanism. If you ever have looked at the sun, you have probably burned out a number of rods and cones, and they usually regenerate rapidly.

Because all the retinal neurons, ganglia, and other hardware are packed in by a separation of less than a wavelength of light, the retina is totally transparent. You look at a retina, even though it has all the “hardware” and is much more complex than a silicon computer chip, and it is totally transparent. Light goes right through it.

What is going on inside the retina?

It has been estimated by a number of computer scientists who are trying to simulate the visual system with computer models that ten billion calculations occur every second before the image ever goes back to the brain. Here is a quotation from John Stevens who is a Ph.D. associate professor of physiology and biomedical engineering (Byte, April 1985): “To simulate 10 milliseconds of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous non-linear differential equations one hundred times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray super-computer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of a hundred years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second.” You have to keep in mind that this particular engineering feat was done several thousand years ago. You might even say that it is a little old-fashioned. It is using neurons that are a million times slower than the little wires inside a computer chip (the conducting traces). So you are starting out with hardware that is already a million times slower than anything you have in a silicon chip. However, it’s put together in such a highly organized and sophisticated way that even the retina of a lowly animal marvelously outperforms our most advanced computers! And it keeps repairing itself!

The author I have just quoted has been very interested in simulating visual systems with a computer chip. He dreams of someday building a silicon chip that actually does what the retina does. Even though that is not yet possible, he conjectures about what it would be like. Going through a list of specifications, he is saying that it would weigh 44 to 110 pounds. Typically, the little silicon chip that runs a computer is about a fraction of an inch in size and is wafer-thin. This “dream chip” would have to weigh 100 pounds to do what the retina does! For comparison, the mammalian retina weighs less than a gram. The “dream chip” would also have to occupy ten thousand cubic inches of space.

The retina only occupies 0.0003 cubic inches of space. The power consumption would be about 300 watts. The retina only consumes about 0.001 watts of power. He goes through other calculations as well. The resolution of this “dream chip” would be about 2000 by 2000 pixels; whereas the retina has a resolution of about 10,000 by 10,000. This chip would have about a million gates (transistors that act like one-way valves); whereas the retina has about 25 billion equivalent gates in it. The circuit layout of this chip would be two dimensional whereas the retina is three dimensional. I could go on and on.

Jared Diamond (Discover, June 1985) criticizes the mammalian eye as badly designed (or not designed). The only “evidence” presented is, in his opinion, that the retina is “inside out.” Inside the eye, the light first has to go through the retinal hardware (that does all the marvelous ten billion calculations per second) and then finally hits the photoreceptors, the rods and the cones. The rods and cones pick up the light and send the signal back for all the processing to occur. This critic is saying that if God knew what He was doing, He would have put the retina the other way around because any idiot knows that light should hit the photoreceptors first without having to go through all the hardware.

The problem with that criticism is that there is actually no significant scattering or absorption of light in passing through the retinal hardware. Because the hardware is packed in so tightly (less than a wavelength of light separations it is transparent. Looking through the biological hardware is like looking through window glass.

By ICR.org: Penguins are fast swimmers, but they shouldn’t be. As they rocket themselves through the water and onto overlying ice shelves, the drag of water friction is supposed to be too great. Researchers… …noticed air bubbles jacketing penguins during their boisterous ascents, and that led them to question if penguins use air to accelerate […]

Penguins are fast swimmers, but they shouldn’t be. As they rocket themselves through the water and onto overlying ice shelves, the drag of water friction is supposed to be too great. Researchers… …noticed air bubbles jacketing penguins during their boisterous ascents, and that led them to question if penguins use air to accelerate underwater.

National Geographic recently reported on how Bangor University biologist Roger Hughes, inspired by emperor penguins leaping out of the water, partnered with an engineer and two researchers to investigate how the penguins could do this. Their results appeared in the journal Marine Ecology Progress Series… Read the full article at the ‘Institute for Creation Research’ and enjoy more penguin facts and figures below.

Adélie Penguins over long distances (10s to 100s of miles or km) can sustain speeds of about 5 mph (8 kph). In short bursts, in order to avoid being caught by leopard seals or in pursuing prey, they can move 5-6 times that fast. Unlike aerial birds, their wings are adapted to give power on both the up and down stroke of the movement, and their bodies, like fish, are fusiform in shape providing low resistance through the water. They are the most hydrodynamic of all marine creatures. Unlike fish or dolphins, Adélie Penguins can change the shape of their body to suit their swimming speed. They press their feet close to the tail for steering.

2. What is the purpose of porpoising?

Adélie Penguins can swim very fast under water going a couple hundred yards on one breath, if need be. Otherwise, like cetaceans, when they need to travel long distances they porpoise (leap forward but above the water in order to inhale air as they swim along).This allows breathing without breaking the forward motion and is necessary for long distance swimming.

3. How long can Adélie Penguins hold their breath underwater, and how deep do they dive?

Normally, Adélie Penguins, while feeding, stay submerged for 2-3 minutes, although the longest recorded submergence is almost 6 minutes. During those 2-3 minutes they most frequently dive to 40-50 m but occasionally to 120-140 m deep; the deepest recorded dive by this species is 170 m. Their heart rate drops from the normal 80-100 beats per min (bpm) to about 20 bpm, and the blood flow to the peripheral (outer) areas of their body is reduced helping to conserve oxygen affixed to blood and muscle protein (hemo- and myoglobin).

4. How high can the penguins jump out of the water?

About 2 m

5. Can penguins do backflips out of the water?

Sometimes they do if they misjudge their landing, but they don’t like to do this.

Penguins (order Sphenisciformes, family Spheniscidae) are a group of aquatic, flightless birds living almost exclusively in the southern hemisphere, especially in Antarctica. Highly adapted for life in the water, penguins have countershaded dark and white plumage, and their wings have evolved into flippers. Most penguins feed on krill, fish, squid, and other forms ofsealife caught while swimming underwater. They spend about half of their lives on land and half in the oceans.

Anatomy and physiology

Penguins are superbly adapted to aquatic life. Their vestigial wings have become flippers, useless for flight in the air. In the water, however, penguins are astonishingly agile. Penguins’ swimming looks very similar to bird’s flight in the air. Within the smooth plumage a layer of air is preserved, ensuring buoyancy. The air layer also helps insulate the birds in cold waters. On land, penguins use their tails and wings to maintain balance for their upright stance.

All penguins are countershaded for camouflage – that is, they have black backs and wings with white fronts. A predator looking up from below (such as an orca or a leopard seal) has difficulty distinguishing between a white penguin belly and the reflective water surface. The dark plumage on their backs camouflages them from above.

Diving penguins reach 6 to 12 km/h (3.7 to 7.5 mph), though there are reports of velocities of 27 km/h (17 mph) (which are more realistic in the case of startled flight). The small penguins do not usually dive deep; they catch their prey near the surface in dives that normally last only one or two minutes. Larger penguins can dive deep in case of need. Dives of the large Emperor Penguin have been recorded reaching a depth of 565 m (1,870 ft) for up to 22 minutes.

Penguins either waddle on their feet or slide on their bellies across the snow, a movement called “tobogganing”, which conserves energy while moving quickly. They also jump with both feet together if they want to move more quickly or cross steep or rocky terrain.

Penguins have an average sense of hearing for birds; this is used by parents and chicks to locate one another in crowded colonies. Their eyes are adapted for underwater vision, and are their primary means of locating prey and avoiding predators; in air it has been suggested that they are nearsighted, although research has not supported this hypothesis.

Penguins have a thick layer of insulating feathers that keeps them warm in water (heat loss in water is much greater than in air). The Emperor Penguin (the largest penguin) has the largest body mass of all penguins, which further reduces relative surface area and heat loss. They also are able to control blood flow to their extremities, reducing the amount of blood that gets cold, but still keeping the extremities from freezing. In the extreme cold of the Antarctic winter, the females are at sea fishing for food leaving the males to brave the weather by themselves. They often huddle together to keep warm and rotate positions to make sure that each penguin gets a turn in the center of the heat pack.

They can drink salt water because their supraorbital gland filters excess salt from the bloodstream. The salt is excreted in a concentrated fluid from the nasal passages.

The Great Auk of the Northern Hemisphere, now extinct, was superficially similar to penguins, and the word “penguin” was originally used for that bird, centuries ago. They are not related to the penguins at all, but are an example of convergent evolution.

The following scientific articles give evidence to the vast complexity of proteins and their genuine inability to gradually evolve from simple to complex. Proteins are large biological molecules consisting of one or more chains of amino acids. Proteins perform a vast array of functions within living organisms, including catalyzing metabolic reactions, replicating DNA, responding to stimuli, and transporting molecules from one location […]

The following scientific articles give evidence to the vast complexity of proteins and their genuine inability to gradually evolve from simple to complex. Proteins are large biological molecules consisting of one or more chains of amino acids. Proteins perform a vast array of functions within living organisms, including catalyzing metabolic reactions, replicating DNA, responding to stimuli, and transporting molecules from one location to another.

Researchers just announced the systematic laboratory induced mutation of successive amino acids over the entire sequence of a simple bacterial protein. The results showed how even the simplest of life’s proteins have irreducibly complex chemical structures, (…) random evolutionary processes that are ascribed to mutations are unable to propel evolution.
DNA holds the coded information that cells use to produce proteins, which are ordered chains of amino acids. Publishing in Nature, researchers successively changed the DNA code of an entire bacterial gene to mutate every amino acid of an 83-amino-acid protein. Please read the full ICR article here

Scientists now know that proteins are extremely complicated three-dimensional chains of several thousand atoms. These atoms are arranged very precisely depending on the function of the protein. Each protein molecule is made up of a “backbone” of amino groups and carboxyl acid groups, linked by carbon atoms. All along the length of the molecule are amino acids, arranged as “side groups” in a very precise fashion, depending on the function of the protein.

As the study of protein molecules progressed, it became evident that proteins of similar function, but in different organisms, had slightly different sequences of amino acids.

Now the study has progressed to the point that it is possible to state with mathematical precision the degree of divergence (difference) in the amino acid sequences of similar proteins from one species to another. For example, a protein molecule that performs a certain function in the cell of a dog might be 17% different from a protein molecule that performs the same function in a fish.

Evolutionists expected that these differences would support their theory. They would have predicted that the protein molecules from the cell of yeast, for example, would perhaps be slightly different from the proteins that performed the same functions in a bacteria cell, but far more similar to the bacterial protein than the proteins from a vertebrate would be. The idea was that the yeast was closer to the bacteria on the “evolutionary ladder” than a vertebrate was, therefore their proteins should be more alike (less divergent). Evolution theory would have predicted that the differences between protein molecules would become gradually and progressively larger as organisms moved up the evolutionary ladder.

However, the evidence is now quite conclusive. The protein from yeast, to continue the above example, is as mathematically divergent from the bacteria protein as the protein from a human. And, in fact, so are the proteins from birds, fish, insects, and even plants!

Instead of a “chain” of divergences leading gradually up from simple species to complex ones, the proteins of each subclass are essentially “equidistant” in divergence from the proteins of the other subclasses. There are no “intermediates” connecting the subclasses.

This phenomenon has now been observed and cataloged for many proteins in many different species.

This evidence has been devastating for the theory that species have gradually changed from simple to complex. Had that theory been true, the divergences at a molecular level, where the changes must have taken place, would have grown gradually and sequentially larger and larger as the species moved up the evolutionary ladder. There should be no “breaks” in the degree of divergence, only a smooth continuum. Instead the differences are consistent and have startling mathematical precision.

Interdependent Molecular Functions

Another discovery that has been devastating for proponents of Darwinism is the amazing degree of interdependency that is found in the functions of the molecules of life.

For example, the mechanism of protein synthesis is dependent upon a cell membrane. But the cell membrane is dependent upon the existence of a protein synthesis mechanism!

Similarly, the protein synthesis mechanism requires energy. But the provision of that energy depends upon specific proteins that have already been synthesized.

In the same vein, the information for the assembly of protein components is stored in the DNA. But in order to obtain this information, proteins must exist that have been generated by the protein synthesis mechanism.

Cells have an accurate translational system (systems that allow the information contained in a DNA molecule to be transferred to other molecules) that totally depends on efficient enzymes. But these enzymes cannot be produced without an accurate translational system.

Examples could go on. The point is that it is impossible to conceive of a situation which gradually led to the conditions which enable a cell to self-replicate. The functions had to exist all at once, because each is dependent on the other. Read Steve Hall’s full article here

A new documentary that Ray Comfort, the controversial New Zealand-born author, TV host and producer of the movie says “completely debunks evolution within its first 16 minutes” has been made available as a download, and with a week more than six thousand people had downloaded the pre-release of the full 38 minute documentary.

LOS ANGELES, CA(ANS) – A new documentary that Ray Comfort, the controversial New Zealand-born author, TV host and producer of the movie says “completely debunks evolution within its first 16 minutes” has been made available as a download, and with a week more than six thousand people had downloaded the pre-release of the full 38 minute documentary.

Ray Comfort

“We had no idea that Evolution vs. God would get such a wonderful response, but it shows that this is an issue of great concern to a lot of people,” says who now lives in Southern California. “It was Sir Isaac Newton who said that atheism ‘is so senseless.’ How could anyone believe that nothing created everything? That’s scientifically impossible.”

Comfort went on to say, “I ask university students and scientists from UCLA and USC if they think things are intelligently designed. None of them do. So I asked them to make me a rose ‘from nothing.’ They flounder like a gasping fish on an African mudflat. They don’t know where to start. It’s wonderful to finally see these people who think they are so smart confronted with common sense. This movie puts a powerful weapon into our hands in the battle against senselessness.”

Actor, Kirk Cameron added, “Ray Comfort does it again! With simplicity and keen insight on the streets, he pulls back the curtain of Evolution and reveals that the Great Wizard of Darwinism is just an insecure little man with a dream of becoming a god. I highly recommend this helpful, faith-building, and inspiring video for families, teachers, and pastors!”

Artwork from the website

While many are ecstatic about the movie, many are not. Dave Muscato, Public Relations Director American Atheists, Inc., said, “Oh, Ray. I am so disappointed in you.” He went on to say, “Ask experts to define evolution, and then USE that definition from then on. The modern definition of evolution is not the same one used 150 years ago; science has progressed during that time!”

David L. added, “He is a Christian fundamentalist extremist who will tell any lie to further his cause. He is scum. A vile [w]retch of a human being…. He is a coward.”

While Ludwig R. stated, “The human race is doomed with people like Comfort walking around.”

Comfort, however, says he understands why atheists are so angry.

Dan Wooding greets Ray Comfort on
His Channel Live program

“They cling to faith in evolution because it’s their beloved doorway into unending and exciting pleasures in this sad and sometimes boring world,” he said.

“If there’s no God and everything happened through a random process of evolution over millions of years, then fornication isn’t morally wrong. It’s fine—it’s simply an animal instinct to procreate our species. It gives the green light to pornography, homosexuality, adultery, and anything else that society thinks is morally okay.

“This movie is more than a wet blanket; it’s a Niagara Falls. It’s the ultimate party pooper because it uniquely exposes—using the words of evolutionary scientists at prestigious universities the lunacy of Darwinian evolution.”

Dan Wooding, 72, who was born in Nigeria of British missionary parents, is an award winning British journalist now living in Southern California with his wife Norma, to whom he has been married for 49 years. They have two sons, Andrew and Peter, and six grandchildren who all live in the UK. He is the founder and international director of ASSIST (Aid to Special Saints in Strategic Times) and the ASSIST News Service (ANS) and he hosts the weekly “Front Page Radio” show on the KWVE Radio Network in Southern California and which is also carried throughout the United States and around the world. Besides this, Wooding is a host for His Channel Live, which is carried via the Internet to some 192 countries. Dan recently received two top media awards — the “Passion for the Persecuted” award from Open Doors US, and as one of the top “Newsmakers of 2011” from Plain Truth magazine. He is the author of some 45 books, the latest of which is “Caped Crusader: Rick Wakeman in the 1970s.” To order a copy, go to: Caped Crusader – Amazon

Late last year prominent philosopher Thomas Nagel published the book “Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False.” Nagel, a New York University professor of philosophy and law, is an atheist whose unique approach to philosophy first garnered notoriety nearly four decades ago.

The article “An Author Attracts Unlikely Allies” in Thursday’s New York Times details how, in the four-plus months since Nagel published “Mind and Cosmos,” the people praising his book have generally been proponents of intelligent design — while Nagel’s fellow atheists have been bashing the book like a piñata.

“In his cool style Mr. Nagel extends his ideas about consciousness into a sweeping critique of the modern scientific worldview, which he calls a ‘heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense,’” Jennifer Schuessler wrote for the Times. “Consciousness, meaning and moral value, he argues, aren’t just incidental features of life on earth, but fundamental aspects of the universe. … Advocates of intelligent design have certainly been enthusiastic. … The response from scientists and most of his fellow philosophers, however, has ranged from deeply skeptical to scorching.”

Schuessler’s article linked to positive appraisals of Nagel’s work from The New Republic (“His important new book is a brief but powerful assault on materialist naturalism”) and the Discovery Institute (“In ‘Mind and Cosmos,’ Nagel serves notice on Darwinists that their coercive tactics at ensuring conformity have not worked with him”).

Last week physicist Adam Frank blogged about “Mind and Cosmos” for NPR: “(Nagel) is not using this work to push a vision of a Deity into the debate about the nature of reality at a fundamental level. His arguments are, for the most part, those of a philosopher steeped in philosophical tradition, laying out an argument that the Mind has its own unique place in the structure of the Universe. … In the early chapters of the book he attempts to cast doubt on the traditional Darwinian account for both the origins of life and the development of species. … I found his arguments to be quite brave, even if I am not ready to follow him to the ends of his ontology. There is a stiff, cold wind in his perspective. Those who dismiss him out of hand are holding fast to a knowledge that does not exist.”

By Rick Marschall, ANS, Dec. 31, 2012: One of the great Sunday pages of the Peanuts comic strip by Charles Schulz shows Linus walking outside while it is snowing. He looks up, he catches snowflakes on his hand… and goes wild when he sees that two are identical. He rushes to show them off, but […]

One of the great Sunday pages of the Peanuts comic strip by Charles Schulz shows Linus walking outside while it is snowing. He looks up, he catches snowflakes on his hand… and goes wild when he sees that two are identical. He rushes to show them off, but before his sister Lucy, or Charlie Brown, or anyone else, can see them, the snowflakes have melted. Good grief.

What would have made that discovery special, of course, is that we are told that no two snowflakes are exactly alike; of the uncountable snowflakes that fall, or have fallen, their crystalline, geometric appearances are all unique.

This seems miraculous, when we think of it. It IS miraculous. There is no logical, structural, organizational reason it that it must be so, but it is. God could have made snowflakes standard-issue; or of two basic designs; or any finite number. But He chose Infinity for that category in nature -– a unique way, in my way of thinking, to reveal Himself. A unique way, but not rare: there are many things in nature that are astonishing in their variety. Consider:

Rainbows arrange themselves by the color spectrum, but we never seem the same display in the same place, and they vary in full arcs, portions, double arcs, in different intensities.

We never see clouds that are identical in the same sky, or miles apart, or years apart – even moments apart. They constantly change.

Despite the best efforts of breeders, no two flowers are ever alike. Compare roses, plumerias, tulips, not to mention wildflowers, and you will always find differences of coloring, size, intensity. A rose is NOT a rose is NOT a rose…

The distinctive colorization of birds, even the patterns on peacocks’ tail-feather displays, distinguish them from other species, but are always different -– from nuances to brilliant features –- from bird to bird.

Famous markings on many animals, like leopards’ spots; giraffe markings; stripes on tigers, zebras, and tabby cats, are like trademarks we instantly recognize. Yet from animal to animal, no two are alike.

And with humans: we each have only two eyes, a nose, a mouth, and hair on our heads -– a small number of features that constitute our appearance –- yet among the world’s 7-billion souls there are no doppelgangers. The idea that we all have a “double” somewhere is a fiction.

God’s infinite variety is wondrous.

We can choose the same patterns in all our ways, but we humans tend not to. When you think of it, when we create (that is, invent) things, almost immediately a march toward standardization commences. Someone comes up with, say, a Model T Ford, or a Hostess Twinkie, or an iPod… and right away the factory assembly lines stamp out clones by the millions.

Humans tend toward the same in their goods; uniformity in their practices; conformity in their ideas. Do tastes in fashion change? I maintain that is merely a seasonal adjustment in a new set of orthodoxies. The same with musical trends, slang phrases, interior-decorators’ colors, widths of lapels and ties: on the surface we want to be different, but we rush to the same, same, same, individually or in our groups.

Years change -– which is what brings me to these thoughts -– time marches on. At New Years’ times we feel obligated to look back and look forward. We look at the same old world, and behold the things that don’t change, despite the magazines’ cover stories. Some things shouldn’t change; in other areas we are stubborn. It is frightening to consider how little human nature has changed when we consider the wars and brutality and oppression and abuse and the things we do to one another. Sin.

But God, the Unchangeable, declines to stop changing the physical world -– the miracle of creation -– in which He, in unfathomable mercy and kindness, has placed us. Creation is for His pleasure, but it pleases Him to please us.

And surely there is a message beyond an amazing God choosing to create eye-candy for His children. If we would only notice it more often. Every bit of creation, every different element and aspect, is a manifestation of a God whose love for us is as limitless and infinite, and distinctive, as the numberless snowflakes and rainbows and flowers.

My prayer for us all in 2013 is not only that we stop and smell the roses, but that we stop and BE the roses.

*

Like roses among thorns, a profound message can grow in the weed patch of pop music. Such was the case in the late 1960s, another troubled time, when a pair of songwriters approached the jazz icon Louis Armstrong with a spiritual but not sectarian song, certainly not jazz, “What a Wonderful World.” The first rule in the creative process often is that there are no rules, and a classic recording, a perfect marriage of lyrics and meanings and vocal style and personality, was their result. It is worth a listen in this New Year, especially for the spoken introduction by Satchmo (“Pops”) before he sings.

Rick Marschall is the author of 65 books and hundreds of magazine articles in many fields, from popular culture (Bostonia Magazine called him “perhaps America’s foremost authority on popular culture”) to history and criticism; country music, television history, biography and children’s books. He is a former political cartoonist, editor of Marvel Comics, and writer for Disney comics. For 10 years he has been active in the Christian field, writing devotionals; co-author of The Secret Revealed with Dr Jim Garlow. His biography of Johann Sebastian Bach for the “Christian Encounters” series (Thomas Nelson) was released in April, 2011. His history of cartoon Advertising, Drawing Power, will be published in July 2011 by the Marschall Books imprint of fantagraphics Books. In October his major biography of Theodore Roosevelt, BULLY!, will be publ;ished by Regnery History of Washington DC. He is currently working on a One-Year CDevotional for Tyndale House; and edits the the reissue of Harper’s Weekly — the Civil War Years for NOVOink e-books. Rick is a former Director of Product Development for Youth Specialties. He is recipient of the 2008 “Christian Writer of the Year” award from the Greater Philadelphia Writer’s Conference, and produces a weekly e-mail devotional, “Monday Morning Music Ministry.” His e-mail address is:RickMarschall@gmail.com.

** You may republish this story with proper attribution.

This story is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the views of the ASSIST News Service or ASSIST Ministries.

By Jonathan M., Evolutionnews, Dec. 20, 2012: I recently received correspondence from a chess Grand Master I know. As an atheist, and an adherent of evolutionary orthodoxy, he wanted to know how I, an ID (Intelligent Design) advocate, would respond to the problem of poor or suboptimal design in nature — an argument to which, […]

I recently received correspondence from a chess Grand Master I know. As an atheist, and an adherent of evolutionary orthodoxy, he wanted to know how I, an ID (Intelligent Design) advocate, would respond to the problem of poor or suboptimal design in nature — an argument to which, he claimed, he had never encountered a satisfactory answer. He gave a few examples, “rang[ing] from technical design flaws such as the recurrent laryngeal nerve, to vestigial features such as the marsupial mole having non-functioning eyes hidden under its skin, to ‘commonsense’ features such as using the same mouth for both eating and breathing, leading to an untold number of deaths through choking.”

I responded by pointing out what seems to me to be four significant flaws in the argument from suboptimal design against ID. The first problem with the argument is that the ability to detect design does not require that the design be optimal. Microsoft Windows operating systems have many design flaws — but that does not make them any less designed. All it takes to show the unsoundness of the argument is for me to point to, as counter-examples, systems that we know are designed but that are, in fact, suboptimal. Plenty of such cases come to mind. The argument carries the assumption that the only candidate for designer is an omnipotent and benevolent deity, but this does not necessarily follow. I happen to believe in such a deity (for, in my judgment, good reasons), but I don’t believe that the evidence of design in biology demands it. Even if one is a theist, I see no problem with the position that God may have acted through secondary causes. Perhaps there is some sort of intrinsic teleology built into the world, for instance, that produces the sort of complex specified information we find so abundantly in living systems.

A second problem with the argument is that it assumes that an intelligent cause would have to produce each living thing de novo. But, again, this does not necessarily follow. The theory of ID (as applied to biology) asserts that there are certain features of living systems that bear hallmarks of an intelligent cause, but this does not necessarily entail a rejection of common ancestry. Perhaps there are constraints on design placed by an organism’s evolutionary history. I happen to be skeptical of universal common ancestry, for reasons that I have articulated in my writings here at ENV. But it isn’t at all incompatible with ID — in fact, many of my colleagues in the ID movement (for example, Michael Behe, Michael Denton) subscribe to common descent. I’m ambivalent. I can see some defensible arguments for the idea of hereditary continuity, but I can also see severe scientific problems with it. In my opinion, many evolutionary theorists on this point fall victim to confirmation bias.

Third, the theory of ID does not require that everything in biology be designed. Indeed, designed artifacts may exhibit evidence of weathering. An illustration would be the once-functional vestigial lenses of marsupial moles which are hidden under the skin.

Fourth, the argument often commits what one might describe as an “evolution-of-the-gaps” fallacy. Whereas the “god-of-the-gaps” fallacy states that “evolution can’t explain this; therefore god must have done it,” the converse “evolution-of-the-gaps” fallacy states that “God wouldn’t have done it that way; therefore evolution must have done it.” It is curious that this dichotomous mode of thinking is precisely what ID proponents are often accused of. Much like “god-of-the-gaps” arguments, the “evolution-of-the-gaps” argument has to retreat with advances in scientific knowledge, as biologists uncover important reasons for the way these features have been designed. One example of this would be the once-thought-to-be-prevalent “junk DNA” in our genomes, for which important function is constantly being identified. I would argue that such design reasons or “trade-offs” are plausible for the recurrent laryngeal nerve (as well as many of the other examples that are traditionally cited, such as the allegedly backwards wiring of the retina), as we have discussed extensively at ENV.

Shortly after making the above points, I received a response from my friend. Regarding my first three objections, my friend wrote (quoted with permission):

…you’re essentially saying you believe God is responsible for some but not necessarily all of the design features we see in the natural world — which effectively gives you a “Get Out of Jail Free” card for any example of poor design that a critic may throw at you, as you can simply reply, “I believe God created/designed some ancestor of that species, but then evolution took its course, which led to the occurrence of that particular design flaw.”

But this isn’t exactly what I was saying. First, ID (in its purest sense) is neutral on who the designer is. The theory of ID has two components — the design inference (our methods for detecting design) and the design hypothesis (the hypothesis that a certain feature is designed). Inferring design in nature does not require that one know the identity or nature of the designer. Moreover, I do not think it is unreasonable to assert that teleology and evolutionary mechanisms can work together — I believe that evolutionary mechanisms are grossly inadequate to account for the complexity of life (and demonstrably so), but they certainly do operate. If, for example, a mutation inactivates a gene (creating a unitary pseudogene) and this somehow becomes fixed (either through drift or because the inactivation of the gene confers some sort of survival advantage), one might consider this to be “suboptimal design.” But I don’t think this is really a compelling argument against the hypothesis of original design. The same is true with all so-called “vestigial organs” such as the human appendix. All of them involve the loss of traits, not their origination.

As for my fourth criticism of the argument, my friend wrote,

Regarding the “evolution of the gaps” argument, I’m not sure if you’re suggesting this applies to any of the examples I gave. Personally I don’t think of these examples as actively providing evidence for evolution — although in many cases they offer what I might think of as “circumstantial evidence,” e.g. the RLN being associated with our fishy ancestors (hardly a technical term but you know what I mean).

But such cases of “suboptimal design” are quite routinely given as evidence for common descent. Jerry Coyne has a whole chapter on it in his book Why Evolution is True (which I recently reviewed here). The recurrent laryngeal nerve is an interesting example, but there is reason to think there may well be design reasons for its circuitous route. I would say that the RLN could be taken as suggestive or circumstantial evidence for our shared ancestry with fish. But there is other evidence as well that needs to be taken into account, much of which militates against the idea of common ancestry. The RLN, then, while interesting, should not be considered in isolation from the other evidence.

Here’s the bottom line: The argument from suboptimal design in biology is weak, since it can be defeated by pointing to counter-examples of suboptimally engineered systems (of which there are many) that we know are nonetheless intelligently designed.